- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:36:07 -0400
- To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 24, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Boris Motik wrote: > Hello, > > [snip] >> >> What about an ontology that has not yet been published at u, so >> retrieving it is not possible, such as when one is editing a new >> ontology. Or even if it is published at u, but you edit the local >> version and aren't ready to publish it as the changes are under >> review. >> > > Whether an ontology has been published at u or not is here beyond > the point. This paragraph simply says that the location > redirection mechanism should make parsing behave as if the ontology > was really retrieved from u (irrespective of the fact whether the > ontology is actually there or not). I probably agree with Peter about it being out of scope, but the case I was thinking about was if it never has been there. Then there is not way behave as if it really was retrieve from there because it has never been there. > [snip] > >>> // An ontology ''O'' <em title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context" >>> class="RFC2119">SHOULD</em> be considered syntactically invalid if >>> the import closure of ''O'' contains // The imports closure of an >>> ontology <em title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context" >>> class="RFC2119">SHOULD NOT</em> contain ## Move to a location-based >>> wording >>> ontologies ''O<sub>1</sub>'' and ''O<sub>2</sub>'' such that >>> >>> * ''O<sub>1</sub>'' and ''O<sub>2</sub>'' are different ontology >>> versions from the same ontology series, or >>> * ''O<sub>1</sub>'' contains an ontology annotation >>> ''owl:incompatibleWith'' with the value equal to either the >>> ontology or the version URI of ''O<sub>2</sub>''. >> >> I still want owl:incompatibleWith to be decoupled from the ontology >> header. Shall I raise this as a separate issue? >> > > What do you really mean "decoupling owl:incompatibleWith from the > ontology header"? I have no problem with converting the annotation > property owl:incompatibleWith a fist-class citizen. I meant being able to state, in a place other than the ontology header, something like IncompatibleOntologies(u1,u2) Is that what you mean by making it a first class citizen? > Whereas it might indeed be useful for an ontology O to state what > other ontologies it is incompatible with, I strongly believe that > O should not say anything about the compatibility of unrelated > ontologies O' and O''. I don't agree, and I don't see why you would think so. >>> The ''axiom closure'' of an ontology ''O'' is the smallest set that >>> contains all the axioms from each ontology ''O<nowiki>'</nowiki>'' >>> in the import closure of ''O'' with all anonymous individuals >>> ''renamed apart'' — that is, the anonymous individuals from >>> different ontologies in the import closure of ''O'' are treated as >>> being different; please refer to [[#Anonymous_Individuals|Section >>> 4.6.2]] for more information. >> >> Why re-specify what renaming apart it. Better to cite the existing >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ where. > > I believe it is beneficial if this specification is self-contained > regarding the most important technical issues. Renaming apart is > one such issue, and I believe it is appropriate to repeat it here. Then also cite, I think, as it makes it easier for someone who is coming from the W3C world to know that we aren't inventing something new. Best, Alan
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 18:36:47 UTC